Very big news
- Thread starter Alan Smithee
- Start date
I wonder where this goes from here (if anywhere). And I wonder if NU will even be involved in it directly now that Colter is no longer at the university.
read this:
The Board did not determine if the players were statutory employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Instead, the Board exercised its discretion not to assert jurisdiction and dismissed the representation petition filed by the union.
I must admit, when I saw the title of your post I thought I would read "NU announces it has received all permits necessary to begin construction of the Lakeside Field complex".
I had suggested that this might be the outcome when this all started . There is precedent for the Board to resolve the matter as it apparently did. There was a case involving the question of whether or not the Board could assert jurisdiction over private Catholic schools consistent with constitutional freedom of religion concerns. The Court dodged the entire constitutional issue by simply declining to find statutory jurisdiction. I haven't read the decision yet, but I suspect that the Board did something similar here. Regardless of how it is articulated, I think the Board found the issue too hot to handle and looked for a way out.
This is a bit clearer for the layman:
Law360, New York (August 17, 2015, 12:30 PM ET) -- The National Labor Relations Board decided Monday to dismiss a petition aimed at securing union representation for Northwestern University scholarship football players, unanimously declining to assert jurisdiction while stopping short of deciding whether the players qualified as "employees" under federal labor law.
The five-member NLRB said that asserting jurisdiction would not promote labor stability, but made clear that its ruling in the closely watched case was narrow and wouldn't preclude the board from potentially tackling the issue of student-athlete's eligibility to unionize in the future.
"We conclude that asserting jurisdiction in this case would not serve to promote stability in labor relations. Our decision today is limited to the grant-in-aid scholarship football players covered by the petition in this particular case; whether we might assert jurisdiction in another case involving grant-in-aid scholarship football players (or other types of scholarship athletes) is a question we need not and do not address at this time," the decision said.
In March 2014, an NLRB regional director in Chicago raised eyebrows when he issued a landmark ruling declaring that Northwestern University football players receiving scholarships were in fact employees under the National Labor Relations Act and could unionize. Northwestern asked the labor board to review that decision, setting the stage for today's decision.
Northwestern said in a statement that it was pleased with the decision to nix the petition lodged by the College Athletes Players Association, and that the votes players cast in a April 2014 union election would not be counted.
"As the University has stated previously, Northwestern considers its students who participate in NCAA Division I sports, including those who receive athletic scholarships, to be students, first and foremost. We applaud our players for bringing national attention to these important issues, but we believe strongly that unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes," the school's statement said.
Law360, New York (August 17, 2015, 12:30 PM ET) -- The National Labor Relations Board decided Monday to dismiss a petition aimed at securing union representation for Northwestern University scholarship football players, unanimously declining to assert jurisdiction while stopping short of deciding whether the players qualified as "employees" under federal labor law.
The five-member NLRB said that asserting jurisdiction would not promote labor stability, but made clear that its ruling in the closely watched case was narrow and wouldn't preclude the board from potentially tackling the issue of student-athlete's eligibility to unionize in the future.
"We conclude that asserting jurisdiction in this case would not serve to promote stability in labor relations. Our decision today is limited to the grant-in-aid scholarship football players covered by the petition in this particular case; whether we might assert jurisdiction in another case involving grant-in-aid scholarship football players (or other types of scholarship athletes) is a question we need not and do not address at this time," the decision said.
In March 2014, an NLRB regional director in Chicago raised eyebrows when he issued a landmark ruling declaring that Northwestern University football players receiving scholarships were in fact employees under the National Labor Relations Act and could unionize. Northwestern asked the labor board to review that decision, setting the stage for today's decision.
Northwestern said in a statement that it was pleased with the decision to nix the petition lodged by the College Athletes Players Association, and that the votes players cast in a April 2014 union election would not be counted.
"As the University has stated previously, Northwestern considers its students who participate in NCAA Division I sports, including those who receive athletic scholarships, to be students, first and foremost. We applaud our players for bringing national attention to these important issues, but we believe strongly that unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes," the school's statement said.
A quote from an article on the issue:
Asked what the Northwestern players’ union organizers’ next move might be in the case, Mandel said: “They don’t have a next move. They have no place to go.”
Another quote from that article:
Allan K. Cubbage, vice president for university relations, said in a statement. "Because the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction in the case and dismissed the petition, the union election held in April 2014 is moot and the votes of Northwestern scholarship football players cast at that time will not be counted."
That plus I welcomed "The Big News" to see a recent posting from one of my favorite posters, Smithee. Really though, a "New Member, with 1 post?." Something is off with this board's new format that a legacy member of Wildcat Report is not getting proper posting credit.
I had a similar case with a state department of labor where they chose not to rule. While they said I could pursue the case in Civil Court, there was not enough money involved to make it worthwhile.
In that case, a former employer owed me money for commissions earned. But at the time, they were required to have a certain license (no longer required ) and because they did not have it, I was required to have it so basically even though they owed me the money, ruling on it would have been ruling on an illegal action (actually, the license shouldn't have been required because of the nature f the position but it did not matter)
This sounds like a similar situation as they are basically saying, since we have jurisdiction over only about 10% of the market, we shouldn't have jurisdiction over any of it.
Interesting. I had a case where we settled it before it got to the Alaska Supreme Court because we did not want to set a precedent. By the time it reached them the justices could and arguably should have similarly ruled the matter no longer merited standing or was simply moot. However, they gratuitously went ahead and rendered an opinion anyway. Every settlement release in Alaska now cites that case, and now that case, and I guess by implication I, live on in infamy.
Quoting from the Opinion:
"Subsequent to the drafting of this opinion, we have been informed that the parties have settled their dispute. While our holding[18] will not, therefore, affect the litigants at bar, we deem the issues of sufficient importance to justify publication of this opinion."
Link to the "Rest of the Opinion":
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4138809433612529323&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Last edited:
But no decision is actually a decision. And for us, it means this thing is done, finally. Had they decided to rule one way or the other, this would have carried on.
I can finally relay what I heard directly when speaking to two former players, separately, on the subject. Both are modern era grads, 'star' players who played the same position, but were not around for the labor vote. Player 1 said he could not understand the unionizing effort. He stated that players knew what they were signing up for, they knew what was being offered, and they were treated extremely well by everyone at NU. He was wholly against the union effort and thought it was ridiculous. Player 2 said he could understand the effort. This player had some exposure to the NFL and the NFLPA and said that shaped his views on the subject. He stated that he could see how the NFLPA was benefitting players' interests. He thought that could be of use in college football. He did say he was treated well at NU, but his concern was mainly for injury of players in college and future livelihood. He stated that had he been in school and voting, he would have voted affirmatively. FWIW…. I didn't want to post when it was a 'live' subject, but want to post now to show (especially given that we'll now never know the results of that vote) that there was definitely some diversity in thought among players at NU.
I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), but while a number of us are proclaiming, "It's done!", I haven't seen anything that would preclude this issue from being revisited at any point in the future. The way I'm reading it, this decision seems more like "We're not pursuing this for the time being" than "This is a dead issue". Can one of our legal guys please clarify this for me (in English, I mean)?
Here's a story on the key points of the decision from our Philip Straus...
NLRB decision: What you need to know
It's no secret that the NLRB is a highly political entity, but does anyone else find a bit of hypocrisy in the fact that the NLRB punted on this ruling, arguing no jurisdiction, while previously finding jurisdiction over Boeing's decision to build a new plant in South Carolina, ruling that the decision was retaliatory?
I'd love to hear the opinions of some better versed in NLRB law.
What it means is that this unionization campaign at Northwestern has run its course. It does not preclude a different case with different facts in the future, though the issue of private v. exempt public institutions probably will be hard to get around, at least in FBS/D1/whatever it's called now. I guess the Ivies could unioinize, which is, if anything, more counterintuitive than NU.I'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), but while a number of us are proclaiming, "It's done!", I haven't seen anything that would preclude this issue from being revisited at any point in the future. The way I'm reading it, this decision seems more like "We're not pursuing this for the time being" than "This is a dead issue". Can one of our legal guys please clarify this for me (in English, I mean)?
I would see this as meaning that for it to be revisited, it would mean having to start the whole process over again. My guess is it would occur somewhere else other than NU so for us and the time being it would seem to be doneI'm not a lawyer (I don't even play one on TV), but while a number of us are proclaiming, "It's done!", I haven't seen anything that would preclude this issue from being revisited at any point in the future. The way I'm reading it, this decision seems more like "We're not pursuing this for the time being" than "This is a dead issue". Can one of our legal guys please clarify this for me (in English, I mean)?
I agree that the decision to punt on the Northwestern issue seems to be political. The Regional Director's Decision relied upon well established principles of law that are accepted in other settings. The problem of course was that applying these principles to scholarship athletes was uncharted water and was going to piss off a lot of people. It's very easy to believe that the NLRB simply didn't want to deal with the political outrage that would have inevitably occurred if they had upheld the Director's Decision. While I expected them to do what they did and don't blame them for it, I have to agree that a desire to avoid getting caught up in a political firestorm was probably a factor in the outcome.
The Boeing case was an entirely different matter. The Board clearly had jurisdiction over Boeing and the dispute in question. What happened was that the CEO of Boeing stupidly stated publicly that Boeing was moving work to South Carolina from Washington State to punish the union in Washington for having engaged in legally protected strike activity. While other employers may have made the same decision, most would have the common sense not to broadcast that they were doing it for an illegal reason. Given the statements by the CEO the Regional Director had no choice but to issue a Complaint seeking to have the work returned to Washington State. Contrary to Boeing's vigorous public relations campaign that was accepted as fact by a lot of the media, there was nothing unusual about the issuance of a Complaint in that case. Although it was a high stakes case, it was a pretty routine application of the law that has existed under both Republican and Democratic administrations and unlike the NU case there was nothing unusual about the facts to which the law would be applied. Another difference between that case and the NU case is that in Boeing the Regional Director simply issued a complaint against Boeing. There was no decision by the Board. Although Boeing insisted that there was no basis to issue the Complaint, it chose to settle the case before the trial was completed.
Interesting article from Deadspin...details I hadn't seen about Kain and Persa's relationship along with the union movement was going to be started during the week leading up to a bowl game, but we didn't make a bowl.
http://deadspin.com/kain-colters-union-battle-cost-him-more-than-he-ever-ex-1724831203
http://deadspin.com/kain-colters-union-battle-cost-him-more-than-he-ever-ex-1724831203
Interesting article. I feel bad that he feels he's in exile. I can understand the hands-off process that Phillips and Pat took leading up to the vote. But it seems like they should bury the hatchet now that it is over.
In a perfect world, I agree. However, Fitz is a human being. The comment where KC referred to him as "The Man" (although possibly not intended as such) was probably at variance with how Fitz sees himself. These comments could also have been detrimental to Fitz' ability to recruit and therefore do his job. While both of these statements could easily be perceived as being overly dramatic, I personally would be hard-pressed to not be upset.
While I am sure that Fitz is a better man than I, I can certainly understand why he would be a little slow to bury the hatchet on this issue.
It was actually somewhat worse, like "the boss man" which can have negative connotations depending upon your point of view. I agree that it was over the top from Kain.
Pat took the high road during the Big 10 Network interview yesterday. Kept saying how proud he was of the guys through the process. He showed a lot of class in that interview.
I think time will mitigate any hard feelings that might exist. I think KC deserves respect for his courage in undertaking an issue so controversial and potentially divisive. It was not ideal for the team, but doesn't a university education try to instill an ability to think and act independently?
Not that style points don't matter. They do, and the timing, messaging, and framing of this issue could have been much better executed. But organizing campaigns in the workplace are almost always divisive, emotional, and destructive of relationships in the near term.
My hope is that Colter stays a respected member of the NU football community in the long run, even if for now he is a pariah in some eyes.
I don't think he is a pariah, but for me, this thing will always be a blemish to what otherwise was a largely successful career at NU. I will say also that I never liked him as a QB, and thought he should have voluntarily switched to WR for the good of the team and his future NFL career. But, the union thing and the disruption it caused is something I won't forget.
very interesting, indeed. I don't know that I like the original plan to try to unveil it right before a bowl game.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
HOOPS RECRUITING BREAKING: 2025 guard Phoenix Gill commits to Northwestern- Latest: ThatkidfromHolland